Federer is missing Monte Carlo (reached 3 consecutive finals - lost all 3 to...wait for it...Nadal, reached 2 Rome finals - 1 lost to Mantilla, 1 lost to Nadal)
Djokovic is missing Monte Carlo (2 finals lost to Nadal I think) and Cincinnati (4 finals lost...2 to Federer and 2 to Murray I think).

I don't think Federer has it in him to win Monte Carlo and Rome even without Nadal in the draw, he's not even playing MC btw.
I could see Djokovic winning Monte Carlo if Nadal is not in the draw or he's not in good shape (I assume 2013 is his best chance). In Cinainnati Djokovic has just been plain unlucky, reached the final on 4 out of the last 5 editions and twice lost to Murray/Federer. He should win it at least once in the future.

Another reason why Djoco should be considered among the best, he is about to achieve a feat no player in the open era has done.

Click to expand...

It is an obscure feat, one step better than "winning all 500s". Masters are way behind Slams and WTF in terms of what players try to peak for; one of them is even optional. Nobody would trade a single Wimbledon victory for 9 Masters. Most people (excluding us, hardcore tennis fans & pundits) would be unable to name most of them, maybe except Indian Wells since the name is so catchy.

It is an obscure feat, one step better than "winning all 500s". Masters are way behind Slams and WTF in terms of what players try to peak for; one of them is even optional. Nobody would trade a single Wimbledon victory for 9 Masters. Most people (excluding us, hardcore tennis fans & pundits) would be unable to name most of them, maybe except Indian Wells since the name is so catchy.

All of Agassi, Federer and Djokovic have won 7 out of the 9. Federer has never won M-C or Rome. Agassi didn't win M-C and Hamburg (3rd clay master). Djoko has never won M-C and Cincy. So far no one has won 8 out of the 9. I hope an active player will do it. (oops sorry I hadn't seen tennis pro's post. Sorry for the repeat.)
ETA: Nadal and Federer are the only 2 players who've won 5 different masters more than once. (Sampras, Agassi and Djoko: 4)

You're probably right there, but it's still a bit of a "2nd tier" stat (for lack of a better term.) It would be a great accomplishment, but it's not something that people would use objectively to bolster Djokovic's GOAT status to any great effect.

It is an obscure feat, one step better than "winning all 500s". Masters are way behind Slams and WTF in terms of what players try to peak for; one of them is even optional. Nobody would trade a single Wimbledon victory for 9 Masters. Most people (excluding us, hardcore tennis fans & pundits) would be unable to name most of them, maybe except Indian Wells since the name is so catchy.

Click to expand...

On the one hand, it is kinda awesome if you can say that you've won all the Masters and Grand Slams (which will probably be the case for novak) but on the other hand players don't think of it as that much of a record seeing that Federer isn't even trying to go for it.